Humans haven't fared well against IBM computers.
Record-holding Jeopardy! champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter lost to IBM's Watson last year on national television. Garry Kasparov, often considered history's greatest chess player, fell to IBM's Deep Blue in 1997.
Machines outsmarted men, but which machine would outsmart the other?
In some sense, neither. Comparing smarts is slippery business, especially with an English major like Watson and a math guy like Deep Blue.
"They were both significantly smarter than similar systems of their type when they appeared, but the nature of their intelligence is very different," says Doug Downey, a machine learning and artificial intelligence researcher at Northwestern University. Like Johnny Unitas and Willie Mays, Deep Blue and Watson weren't programmed to compete with each other. They played and succeeded at very different games.
Still, the two systems don't defy comparison, and there is one very important difference: Deep Blue stayed in computers' comfort zone; Watson walked on awkward terrain for a machine.
"The easiest thing for computers is super advanced math," says Stephen Baker, former BusinessWeek technology writer and author of Final Jeopardy, an inside look at the creation of Watson. "The hardest thing for them is kindergarten." Chess kept Deep Blue in the realm of what computers are good at, using statistics and probabilities to determine strategy. Jeopardy!, on the other hand, pushed Watson into an unfamiliar world of human language and unstructured data.
Though it seems counterintuitive from a human perspective, "Watson is a far more sophisticated program than Deep Blue, because it's closer to mastering kindergarten (though still far away)," Baker says.
In the future, advanced computers will likely merge Watson's mastery of knowledge and language with Deep Blue's computational power. "That's kind of where we're going as field: a system that's as broad as Watson but as deep as Deep Blue," Downey says.
These types of computers could have far-reaching applications. "Imagine if we could do that in the medical domain," Downey says. "It would just be tremendous." For difficult or rare diagnoses, computers could potentially connect dots between symptoms, diagnoses and treatments that doctors don't always see. Such technology would become a doctor's ultimate sidekick, but you shouldn't expect a walking, talking Dr. Watson to replace your family physician in the exam room any time soon. Chess and Jeopardy! seem like benchmarks of human intelligence, but "Deep Blue didn't actually play chess," Downey says. "It generated chess moves but it required a person to sit at the table and actually execute moves." And with Watson, "There wasn't a robot that walked up to the podium, picked up the buzzer and rang in on time."
Downey goes on: "It turns out, sensory motor skills and also just common sense that people have, those have been the tougher hurdles for AI." What comes easiest to humans comes hardest to computers, and vice versa.
Deep Blue and Watson might have defeated brilliant champions at chess and Jeopardy!, but neither could compete with a toddler at some of the most basic forms of human cognition.
Have a burning science question you'd like to see answered in our FYI section? Email it to firstname.lastname@example.org.
I was about to comment that I couldnt click on the link to open the article since the title of the article was not linked to the page, but you guys fixed it.
The smartest computers are the ones the USA government hasn't told you about yet! ;)
USA Super Snoop Computer
"...Using what will likely be the world’s fastest supercomputer and the world’s largest data storage and analysis facility, the NSA plans to comb unimaginably voluminous troves of messages for patterns they could use to crack AES and weaker encryption schemes, according to Bamford’s story. A few of the facts he’s uncovered:
•The $2 billion data center being built in Utah would have four 25,000 square-foot halls filled with servers, as well as another 900,000 square feet for administration.
•It will use 65 megawatts of electricity a year , with an annual bill of $40 million, and incorporates a $10 million security system.
•Since 2001, the NSA has intercepted and stored between 15 and 20 trillion messages, according to the estimate of ex-NSA scientist Bill Binney. It now aims to store yottabytes of data. A yottabyte is a million billions of gigabytes. According to one storage firm’s estimate in 2009, a yottabyte would cover the entire states of Rhode Island and Delaware with data centers.
•When the Department of Energy began a supercomputing project in 2004 that took the title of the world’s fastest known computer from IBM in 2009 with its “Jaguar” system, it simultaneously created a secret track for the same program focused on cracking codes. The project took place in a $41 million, 214,000 square foot building at Oak Ridge National Lab with 318 scientists and other staff. The supercomputer produced there was faster than the so-called “world’s fastest” Jaguar.
•The NSA project now aims to break the “exaflop barrier” by building a supercomputer a hundred times faster than the fastest existing today, the Japanese “K Computer.” That code-breaking system is projected to use 200 megawatts of power, about as much as would power 200,000 homes..."
more able too...
in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone
│ ● ● │—☆—
│○ ╰┬┬┬╯ ○│／｜＼
│ ╰—╯ ／